Doepfer

Hi Stu,
 
I like that idea, especially as it would be restricted to filters.
 
david
 
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* * *
David Salter
Senior Consultant
SSG UKI

Thomson Reuters

O +44 (0)20 7542 2402X 52402
M 07990562402

david.salter@thomsonreuters.com
thomsonreuters.com <http://thomsonreuters.com/> 
 
P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail 

 

________________________________

From: Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Stu Grimshaw
Sent: 28 January 2009 11:44
To: Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Doepfer_a100] dual balanced vcf: an alternative approach



the preliminary plan for a dual balanced vcf is very welcome. i've had
this setup at times (with switches instead of vca's) and it does
indeed mean a lot of hardware.

but an alternative would be a module with audio in and out, plus sends
and returns for two filter modules, a cv input commen to both filters,
and possibly cv/inverted cv outputs for voltage controlled freq
spread. all the rest can be done at the filters themselves.

this has severeal advantages:

the choice of filter remains flexible. clean a103 and distorted wasp
as hpf sounds wicked - in all its configurations! but the option of
using 2 matched filters stays open for those that want to use it in
this way.

the rest of the filter inputs remain available, e.g. lfo on just one
of the filters, or additional envlopes or whatever.

it would reduce development time and effort.

it would reduce costs for those who already have more than enough
filters (if indeed that is possible) :)

what do you think?

stu



 


This email was sent to you by Thomson Reuters, the global news and information company.
Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of Thomson Reuters.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]